Originally posted by djwayne: If you're going to go on a rampage everytime somebody listens to your music without paying, I'd suggest you find another career to pursue.
I don't think the issue here is whether or not Loreena wants her music in the public stream, but moreso how the public has access to it. The key is how to minimize the amount of people "listening to your music without paying" to the amount of people who have access either through your website, iTunes, Borders, Barnes and Noble, Ma and Pa Record Shop, or what have you that obtains and enjoys content legally. Sure, you can not raise a rampage everytime someone listens to your music for free or obtains it for free, but if your ratio of free sharing vs. legally sharing is so high that your profit has decreased, I'm sure you would be rampaging. You and every other artist who was in that situation. I don't necessarily buy the argument that because Metallica likely has millions of dollars from record and tour profit, what can one free swipe really harm, because if you think about others than yourself for one moment, that's a lot of free swipes and a lot of lost profit. And like them or not, mainstream vs. indie, I believe all artists deserve a fair shake. They all basically did the same thing right? Make music? Why discriminate against the big guy or little guy?
Well, to give some actual numbers. I've read that Amazon and iTunes both have around 6 million songs in their catalogs that music fans can chose from.... 6 MILLION SONGS !! Do you know how long it would take you to listen to every song just once ?? At 4 minutes a piece, that would be 24 million minutes of music !!!!!!! I'll let you do the math if you want to know how many days, weeks, months, years it would take you to listen to everything just once.
Posts: 71 | Location: North East Ohio | Registered: May 23, 2006
Originally posted by dlaws99: Hi Wayne...I don't think "listening" to music for free is the issue. It's providing that music for free download is the issue. --Dennis-- (what's up with Hafner??)
quote:
Originally posted by djwayne:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert: Hello Loreena, I think its great that you take the time to communicate with the folks that enjoy and admire your work. Thank you for that. I also have a question for you regarding this forum. Did you give permission for your work to be downloaded for free? It seems to me that this should be up to you. If you did not give permission, then I would say for sure it is theft. Kind regards Robert.
Releasing music into the public domain is like letting the Genie out of the bottle. It's very hard to control what the music does once it is released. Putting that Genie back into the bottle is very difficult. I'd say if you're not interested in having you music listened to, or not comfortable with people downloading your music, then don't release it.
If you're going to go on a rampage everytime somebody listens to your music without paying, I'd suggest you find another career to pursue.
Years ago, people use to tape music off the radio...it's basically the same thing with a modern twist to it. I think it should be encouraged, not made illegal. Do you really think yanking a few video's off You Tube is going to help Loreena's chances at selling dvd's ?? She needs all the free publicity she can get...trust me on this, there is soooo much music available in today's market, it's a miracle when anything gets played. I know, my music is buried by competing music over on Amazon. My music may never see the light of day. That's the reality of it all...there is soooo much out there...
Posts: 71 | Location: North East Ohio | Registered: May 23, 2006
Originally posted by djwayne: If you're going to go on a rampage everytime somebody listens to your music without paying, I'd suggest you find another career to pursue.
I don't think the issue here is whether or not Loreena wants her music in the public stream, but moreso how the public has access to it. The key is how to minimize the amount of people "listening to your music without paying" to the amount of people who have access either through your website, iTunes, Borders, Barnes and Noble, Ma and Pa Record Shop, or what have you that obtains and enjoys content legally. Sure, you can not raise a rampage everytime someone listens to your music for free or obtains it for free, but if your ratio of free sharing vs. legally sharing is so high that your profit has decreased, I'm sure you would be rampaging. You and every other artist who was in that situation. I don't necessarily buy the argument that because Metallica likely has millions of dollars from record and tour profit, what can one free swipe really harm, because if you think about others than yourself for one moment, that's a lot of free swipes and a lot of lost profit. And like them or not, mainstream vs. indie, I believe all artists deserve a fair shake. They all basically did the same thing right? Make music? Why discriminate against the big guy or little guy?
Hi Wayne...I don't think "listening" to music for free is the issue. It's providing that music for free download is the issue. --Dennis-- (what's up with Hafner??)
quote:
Originally posted by djwayne:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert: Hello Loreena, I think its great that you take the time to communicate with the folks that enjoy and admire your work. Thank you for that. I also have a question for you regarding this forum. Did you give permission for your work to be downloaded for free? It seems to me that this should be up to you. If you did not give permission, then I would say for sure it is theft. Kind regards Robert.
Releasing music into the public domain is like letting the Genie out of the bottle. It's very hard to control what the music does once it is released. Putting that Genie back into the bottle is very difficult. I'd say if you're not interested in having you music listened to, or not comfortable with people downloading your music, then don't release it.
If you're going to go on a rampage everytime somebody listens to your music without paying, I'd suggest you find another career to pursue.
Posts: 235 | Location: Monterey CA | Registered: May 22, 2007
Originally posted by Robert: Hello Loreena, I think its great that you take the time to communicate with the folks that enjoy and admire your work. Thank you for that. I also have a question for you regarding this forum. Did you give permission for your work to be downloaded for free? It seems to me that this should be up to you. If you did not give permission, then I would say for sure it is theft. Kind regards Robert.
Releasing music into the public domain is like letting the Genie out of the bottle. It's very hard to control what the music does once it is released. Putting that Genie back into the bottle is very difficult. I'd say if you're not interested in having you music listened to, or not comfortable with people downloading your music, then don't release it.
If you're going to go on a rampage everytime somebody listens to your music without paying, I'd suggest you find another career to pursue.
Posts: 71 | Location: North East Ohio | Registered: May 23, 2006
Hello Loreena, I think its great that you take the time to communicate with the folks that enjoy and admire your work. Thank you for that. I also have a question for you regarding this forum. Did you give permission for your work to be downloaded for free? It seems to me that this should be up to you. If you did not give permission, then I would say for sure it is theft. Kind regards Robert.
Posts: 40 | Location: Canada. | Registered: October 31, 2006
Agree. Why else would they be making a copyright claim? The quality of the video isn't relevant. Intellectual property rights and permission to use that property is the issue.
quote:
Originally posted by Robert: "It is not pure and simple theft." I personally and totally dissagree with that, I think it IS theft. What else could you call it? Robert.
Posts: 235 | Location: Monterey CA | Registered: May 22, 2007
Originally posted by Robert: "It is not pure and simple theft." I personally and totally dissagree with that, I think it IS theft. What else could you call it? Robert.
Some people call it promotion, exposure, free publicity. It's funny how Metallica was getting their files shared more than anyone else, but they also sold more CD's than anyone else. CD sales have indeed been tied directly into file sharing. If NOBODY is listening to your music, NOBODY is buying it either. To think that every file shared was a lost sale, is a mistake. Many people like to at least hear music before buying it, and this is how they do it...imagine sifting thru 1000's of cd's to find a song you like.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: djwayne,
Posts: 71 | Location: North East Ohio | Registered: May 23, 2006
It is not "pure and simple theft." Firstly, because Canada's Copyright act does not contain a single mention of the word "theft". Theft implies that you get something by depriving someone else of it. That does not describe what is going on here at all.
quote:
Originally posted by Shan-Lyn: Why would people bother buying her music when they have it all anyway due to the YouTube or Google videos?
The videos on Youtube and Google video are poor quality. People watch the video on youtube to see if they like the music. If they do, they buy the album. If Youtube quality is good enough for them, they wouldn't have bought the album anyway.
I would also like to point out that a recent study from the Government of Canada found that "our analysis of the Canadian P2P file-sharing subpopulation suggests that there is a strong positive relationship between P2P file-sharing and CD purchasing. That is, among Canadians actually engaged in it, P2P file-sharing increases CD purchasing. " (emphasis mine)
Free music and a sustainable business. I don't believe music should be free but should be paid for and then enjoyed. While music can be spread 'privately' should this practice be public? How is the artist rewarded if free in public? Also,Loreena has a unique relationship with her followers, but is it enough to sustain a 'business'? A dilemma for certain, but I suspect there are those products that her followers would purchase, while a song or two sold on the internet wouldn't break that relationship. As much as anything it is her story we love, but music is the business. Products that continue to educate and provide that story and sing the song will be purchased by her followers, songs will be purchased by others.
Posts: 5 | Location: New Mexico | Registered: June 25, 2007
Originally posted by Stacey: Hello, I passed your question about copyrights on to Loreena's Business Affairs Consultant, Ian Blackaby, and here is what he had to say on the topic. Best regards, Stacey
At Quinlan Road we protect Loreena's copyrights as vigorously as the law and the available technologies allow us to. On the other side of the coin Quinlan Road prides itself on being quick to respond to all manner of unsolicited requests from any number of third parties for the use of Loreena's music and we grant gratis licenses to all kinds of individuals, bodies and associations to which the majority of companies operating in the music business would fail to give the time of day."
All those "Alhambra Nights" clips that were om YouTube are gone and replaced with a message: This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Quinlan Road Limited.
Right on Loreena...
Dennis -
Because you know how easy it is to get a YouTube Video and transfer it onto DVD? Let alone strip the song from the video once it's been taken?
Why would people bother buying her music when they have it all anyway due to the YouTube or Google videos?
There's also the reality of 'piracy' as well, with people then marketing Loreena's music, and I've seen a lot of this on 'eBay'.
It's pure and simple theft. And I do hope QR looks into that area as well.
All those "Alhambra Nights" clips that were om YouTube are gone and replaced with a message: This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Quinlan Road Limited.
Right on Loreena...
I saw that the other night, and I've meaning to pass that along. However, I went back a few more pages and I noticed a few videos are up.
Originally posted by Stacey: Hello, I passed your question about copyrights on to Loreena's Business Affairs Consultant, Ian Blackaby, and here is what he had to say on the topic. Best regards, Stacey
At Quinlan Road we protect Loreena's copyrights as vigorously as the law and the available technologies allow us to. On the other side of the coin Quinlan Road prides itself on being quick to respond to all manner of unsolicited requests from any number of third parties for the use of Loreena's music and we grant gratis licenses to all kinds of individuals, bodies and associations to which the majority of companies operating in the music business would fail to give the time of day."
All those "Alhambra Nights" clips that were om YouTube are gone and replaced with a message: This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Quinlan Road Limited.
Right on Loreena...
Posts: 235 | Location: Monterey CA | Registered: May 22, 2007
Angie, it seems a lot of bands and internet music sites are experimenting with various schemes to get people to buy or at least listen to music. I think this is a good thing, as the customers will ultimately decide what they want to buy. I recently got my music up on Amazon MP3, and what they are doing is offering my music in exchange for "Pepsi Points" which you get for buying Pepsi products. I don't know if this will work or not...it's Amazon's experiment, not mine, as I don't have a say in it. You can check out my Amazon website here...
